Yeah, I totally screwed that one up...

Also: uber, I DID know...  I was f-ing with you (maybe I should have just said "stick to comedy" instead of *bumps knux*...  I expected you to be sharp enough to pick up on it.)

And you are right...  taking the linear model at face value is absurd, since you wind up with negatives, rather than the tails of a bell curve extending infinitely in both directions...  But it's still a better indicator of trends for analysis then averaging the sales over time (which is what you were offering).  My KZ example isn't a strawman, it's more of a micro view of the flaw in your "PS3 has been out for two years and has sold 20m, thus PS3 sells 10m a year" theory.  We both know that the high sales in the first year skew the average, much like KZ's high sals in its first week or two.  If you just said "KZ sold 1.5m in 9 weeks, so KZ sells about 166,000 a week," you'd be WAY off from a predictive analysis standpoint.  However, as flawed as the linear method is, it's going to give you a MUCH more accurate read on where the sales are going.

Other than that, how the hell are you?

well i'll be a son of a bitch.    i didn't figure you for a big enough geek to be on this site.

my comment about the ps3 selling 10m a year was descriptive.  i wasn't trying to posit that as anything predictive.  game sales are closer to radioactive decay models than anything linear, but console sales are a different beast altogether.  to be honest i have done that much comparative analysis with the first two years to be able to say what i think is happening in 2009.  but if you say the trend is that the ps3 is pulling fewer numbers per year then i'll concede it.

my theory at the moment as to the sales decline is that people are pretty dumb.  they look at the ps3 as primarily a toy, and a very expensive one at that.  for the vast majority of potential customers, the entire functionality of the ps3 is beyond their interest.  i don't know of too many parents who would spring for that for their kids over a cheaper 360, when they can play pretty much the same games.  throughout gaming history, next gen consoles typically started between 3 and 4 hundred bucks.  to start at 6 really shocked the masses, and so the ambition of sony might have been its doom.

but things are great.  i really like doing law.  the clients sometimes get to me (overly litigious folk looking for quick money), but fighting insurance companies is super satisfying.  why haven't you been at the other place?  you've missed out on much discussion.

This is by far the Dumbest thread...

You nailed it on that...  As mainstream as they are now, people still look on video games as "kids stuff" or "geek stuff" (look at us calling each other geeks...).  I know when I bought our PS3, I was looking at it as a continuation of my investment in the brand (I had a ton of PS2 games I still loved, and had gone through a couple PS2s...  logic dictated grabbing this thing before BC went away) as well as an investment in an affordable Blu-Ray player (which payed off, since it's the only "first genertion" model to still be relevant), among other things.  Most folks, however, see "toy".  Worse, "expensive toy".

I've been scarce at the other forum due to it being blocked at work.  After you introduced me to this place when we were having the discussion about console sales numbers there way back when, I've popped on her on occasion.  When it became one of the only forums I could still post on, I signed up.  Then, I had that three week "Lean Six Sigma" course, and started stat-geeking.  The PS3 is healthier than the 360 was at this time in its lifespan, but is leaking baout 6% sales year over year, which, if not broken, would trend towards it no longer being a viable console well short of the 10 year goal.

That said, if they can stick to one SKU long enough to do a price cut, then extend the life with a "PS3 Slim" or whatever, I think they'll nail it.  They'll still be in third when the 720 (or "Evolution" I'm hearing) and "Yipii" as I have been calling it hit, but they will probably stick out the ten years...  just not as succesfully as the PS2.

That sounds fun, sticking it to the insurance companies...  They're bastards, on the whole.  Good to see you around here...  I've always enjoyed our more "geek-based" discussions.

Not to mention Johnny Crush. Those huge penises popping out of the ground are the harbingers of a Microsoft gaming monopoly.

there is a thread on here about the fact that the ps3 is doing better in its lifecycle than the xbox, but the xbots don't care.  the fanaticism on here is nauseating and infuriating.  looking at the comparative weekly graphs, i'm not so bothered that the ps3 is in last when its curve has the same shape as the others.  besides, if sony is dying, then microsoft is not that far behind.  people are just using the numbers to rationalize what they wish to believe.

 Yeah, the "3.5m ahead at this time" thread.  By all rights, the gap should be about half what it is...  If Sony can hit its stride this year (reversing the decline to the 6-10% increase they were talking about), then they could tie it up right about as the gen ends.  The "from launch" comparison is going to look all f'd up this year, though, as that's when 360 started picking up steam.  It'll be an interesting year.

if sony doesn't make up considerable ground by the release of gran turismo 5, then it never will.

PS3 has its 10 year plan and it has a lot of good games up its sleeve and Sony has price as a weapon that could change things dramatically in favour of PS3 over the 360.

But, Troll...  can it change them in a meaningful and relevant way?  If they truly do plan to "rule the generation" in "3-5 years", it will be a little late in the game to make an impact in many eyes...  especially early developers for the next gen.